Albert Gallatin
were always towards Jefferson, followed.
At the head of the Republican opposition was Madison. Wise in council,
convincing in argument, an able and even adroit debater, he was an
admirable leader, but his tactics were rather of the closet than the
field. He was wanting in the personal vigor which, scorning defense,
delights in bold attack upon the central position of the enemy, and
carries opposition to the last limit of parliamentary aggression. With
this mildness of character, though recognized as the leader of his
party, he, as a habit, waived his control upon the floor of the House,
and, reserving his interference for occasions when questions of
constitutional interpretation arose, left the general direction of
debate to William B. Giles of Virginia, a skillful tactician and a ready
debater, keen, bold, and troubled by no scruples of modesty, respect, or
reverence for friend or foe. Of equal vigor, but of more reserve, was
John Nicholas of Virginia--a man of strong intellect, reliable temper,
and with the dignity of the old school. To these were now added Albert
Gallatin and Edward Livingston. Edward Livingston, from New York, was
young, and as yet inexperienced in debate, but of remarkable powers. He
was another example of that early intellectual maturity which was a
characteristic of the time.
When Congress met, the all-disturbing question was the foreign policy of
the United States. The influence of the French Revolution upon American
politics was great. The Federalists, conservative in their views, held
the new democratic doctrines in abhorrence, and used the terrible
excesses of the French Revolution with telling force against their
Republican adversaries. The need of a strong government was held up as
the only alternative to anarchy. In the struggle which now united Europe
against the French republic, the sympathies of the Federalists were with
England. Hence they were accused of a desire to establish a monarchy in
the United States, and were ignominiously called the British party.
Shays's Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whiskey Insurrection in
Pennsylvania gave point to their arguments.
On the other side was the large and powerful party which, throughout the
war in the Continental Congress, under the confederation in the national
convention which framed and in the state conventions which ratified the
Constitution, had opposed the tendency to centralization, but had been
defeated by the yearning of the body of the plain people for a
government strong enough at least to secure them peace at home and
protection abroad. This natural craving being satisfied, the old
aversion to class distinctions returned. The dread of an aristocracy,
which did not exist even in name, threw many of the supporters of the
Constitution into the ranks of its opponents, who were democrats in name
and in fact. The proclamation of the rights of man awoke this latent
sentiment, and aroused an intense sympathy for the people of France.
This again was strengthened by the memory, still warm, of the services
of France in the cause of independence. Lafayette, who represented the
true French republican spirit, and held a place in the affections of the
American people second only to that of Washington, was languishing, a
prisoner to the coalition of sovereigns, in an Austrian dungeon.
Jefferson returned from France deeply imbued with the spirit of the
French Revolution. His views were warmly received by his political
friends, and the principles of the new school of politics were rapidly
spread by an eager band of acolytes, whose ranks were recruited until
the feeble opposition became a powerful party. Democratic societies,
organized on the plan of the French Jacobin clubs, extended French
influence, and no doubt were aided in a practical way by Genet, whose
recent marriage with the daughter of George Clinton, the head of the
Republican party in New York, was an additional link in the bond of
alliance.
During the second session of the third Congress Madison had led the
opposition in a mild manner; party lines were not yet strongly defined,
and the influence of Washington was paramount. In the interim between
its expiration and the meeting of the fourth Congress in December, the
country was wildly agitated by the Jay treaty. This document not
reaching America until after the adjournment of Congress in March,
Washington convened the Senate in extra and secret session on June 1,
and the treaty was ratified by barely two thirds majority. Imprudently
withheld for a time, it was at last made public by Senator Mason of
Virginia, one of the ten who voted against its ratification. It
disappointed the people, and was denounced as a weak and ignominious
surrender of American rights. The merchants of Boston, New York,
Philadelphia, and Charleston protested against it in public meetings. It
was burned, and the English flag was trailed in the dust before the
British minister's house at the capital. Jay was hung in effigy, and
Hamilton, who ventured to defend the treaty at a public meeting, was
stoned. To add to the popular indignation that the impressment of
American seamen had been ignored in the instrument, came the alarming
news that the British ministry had renewed their order to seize vessels
carrying provisions to France, whither a large part of the American
grain crop was destined. On the other hand, Randolph, the secretary of
state, had compromised the dignity of his official position in his
intercourse with Fauchet, the late French ambassador, whose
correspondence with his government, thrown overboard from a French
packet, had been fished up by a British man-of-war, and forwarded to
Grenville, by whom it was returned to America. Thus petard answered
petard, and the charge by the Republicans upon the Federalists of taking
British gold was returned with interest, and the accusation of receiving
bribe money was brought close home to Randolph, if not proved.
Hard names were not wanting either; Jefferson was ridiculed as a
_sans-culotte_ and red-legged Democrat. Nor was Washington spared. He
was charged with an assumption of royal airs, with political hypocrisy,
and even with being a public defaulter; a charge which no one dared to
father, and which was instantly shown to be false and malicious. It was
made by Bache in "The Aurora," a contemptible sheet after the fashion of
"L'Ami du Peuple," Marat's Paris organ.
Such was the temper of the people when the House of Representatives met
on December 7, 1795. The speaker, Dayton, was strongly anti-British in
feeling. He was a family connection of Burr, but there is no reason to
suppose that he was under the personal influence of that adroit and
unscrupulous partisan. On the 8th President Washington, according to his
custom, addressed both houses of Congress. This day for the first time
the gallery was thrown open to the public. When the reply of the Senate
came up for consideration, the purpose of the Republicans was at once
manifest. They would not consent to the approbation it expressed of the
conduct of the administration. They would not admit that the causes of
external discord had been extinguished "on terms consistent with our
national honor and safety," or indeed extinguished at all, and they
would not acknowledge that the efforts of the President to establish the
peace, freedom, and prosperity of the country had been "enlightened and
firm." Nevertheless the address was agreed to by a vote of 14 to 8.
In the House a resolution was moved that a respectful address ought to
be presented. The opposition immediately declared itself. Objection was
made to an address, and in its stead the appointment of a committee to
wait personally on the President was moved. The covert intent was
apparent through the thin veil of expediency, but the Republicans as a
body were unwilling to go this length in discourtesy, and did not
support the motion. Only eighteen members voted for it. Messrs. Madison,
Sedgwick, and Sitgreaves, the committee to report an address, brought in
a draft on the 14th which was ordered to be printed for the use of the
members. The next day the work of dissection was begun by an objection
to the words "probably unequaled spectacle of national happiness"
applied to the country, and the words "undiminished confidence" applied
to the President. The words "probably unequaled" were stricken out
without decided opposition by a vote of forty-three to thirty-nine.
Opinions were divided on that subject even in the ranks of the
Federalists. The cause of dissatisfaction was the Jay treaty. The
address was recommitted without a division. The next day Madison brought
in the address with a modification of the clause objected to. In its new
form the "very great share" of Washington's zealous and faithful
services in securing the national happiness was acknowledged. The
address thus amended was unanimously adopted. In this encounter nothing
was gained by the Republicans. The people would not have endured an open
declaration of want of confidence in Washington. But the entering wedge
of the new policy was driven. The treaty was to be assailed. It was,
however, the pretext, not the cause of the struggle, the real object of
which was to extend the powers of the House, and subordinate the
executive to its will. Before beginning the main attack the Republicans
developed their general plan in their treatment of secondary issues; of
these the principal was a tightening of the control of the House over
the Treasury Department.
In this Mr. Gallatin took the lead. His first measure was the
appointment of a standing Committee of Finance to superintend the
general operations of this nature,--an efficient aid to the Treasury
when there is accord between the administration and the House, an
annoying censor when the latter is in opposition. This was the beginning
of the Ways and Means Committee, which soon became and has since
continued to be the most important committee of the House. To it were to
be referred all reports from the Treasury Department, all propositions
relating to revenue, and it was to report on the state of the public
debt, revenue, and expenditures. The committee was appointed without
opposition. It consisted of fourteen members, William Smith, Sedgwick,
Madison, Baldwin, Gallatin, Bourne, Gilman, Murray, Buck, Gilbert,
Isaac Smith, Blount, Patten, and Hillhouse, and represented the strength
of both political parties. To this committee the estimates of
appropriations for the support of the government for the coming year
were referred. The next step was to bring to the knowledge of the House
the precise condition of the Treasury. To this end the secretary was
called upon to furnish comparative views of the commerce and tonnage of
the country for every year from the formation of the department in 1789,
with tables of the exports and imports, foreign and domestic, separately
stated, and with a division of the nationality of the carrying vessels.
Later, comparative views were demanded of the receipts and expenditures
for each year; the receipts under the heads of Loans, Revenue in its
various forms, and others in their several divisions; the expenditures,
also, to be classified under the heads of Civil List, Foreign
Intercourse, Military Establishment, Indian Department, Naval, etc.
Finally a call was made for a statement of the annual appropriations and
the applications of them by the Treasury. The object of Mr. Gallatin was
to establish the expenses of the government in each department of
service on a permanent footing for which annual appropriations should be
made, and for any extraordinary expenditure to insist on a special
appropriation for the stated object and none other. By keeping
constantly before the House this distinction between the permanent fund